Good value family car, but lacking dynamics and quality

What is it?

A Mitsubishi Lancer, but not as you know it. The name conjures up images of turbocharged rally specials, four-wheel drifting through muddy forests. It does not conjure up images of a sensible family car, which is exactly what this 2.0-litre diesel model is.

What’s it like?

A good value, frugal and relatively well equipped family saloon. That it bears more than a passing physical resemblance to the super-heated 300bhp Evo X is a pleasant bonus.

Unfortunately, The Evo DNA is less evident on the road. The VW-sourced diesel is far more refined than it is in the Outlander soft-roader. It feels less peaky too, presumably a result of the Lancer’s commendably slender 1450kg kerb weight (a similarly powered Mondeo weighs 165kg more).

The 1968cc pump-duse unit is still a rattly old thing compared to the best common-rail units, though. It also feels a touch breathless when extended, although the 228lb ft of torque available from just 1750rpm mitigates against the need to stretch the engine out of its comfort zone.

The quality of the rest of the package is just as patchy. There’s more than enough grip, but the ride feels unsettled, working against the topography of the road rather than with it. The gearchange feels short and sporting, but occasionally notchy and unsophisticated.

Should I buy one?

Only if you like the looks of the new Evo X, but can’t afford the price or running costs, then the diesel Lancer makes a reasonable case for itself. It just about makes a case for itself as a budget alternative to a Mondeo, even if it lags behind in dynamics and quality. Just don’t expect Evo-style thrills. Or even Mondeo-style ability.

Matt Rigby

Join the debate


1 April 2008

So the new Lancer is lighter than a Mondeo, is seen as a budget alternative to a Mondeo and isn't quite accomplished as a Mondeo. All very well Autocar, but last time i looked the Lancer is a Focus rival! And i doubt the Mitsubishi isn't even as accomplished as the 4 year old Ford.

19 April 2011

I have one as a long-term hire car while I await the delivery of a new Skoda Superb. It is the most cheap and nasty feeling car I have driven in a long, long time; possibly ever. I should imagine spending the day in one of the more crappy vans currently available would be a good comparison. Incredibly noisy, uncomfortable, furnished with the cheapest materials available and with a crude, incompetent chassis, it is a thoroughly unpleasant place to be. The reasonably peppy performance from the VW-derived 140 PS engine is its only redeeming feature. Avoid.

19 April 2011

I test drove a 2.0 petrol in 2009 (October?). Dreadful car. The engine was rough, the steering was weirdly weighted, the ride/handling was poor - though to give it credit the back-end didn't hop mid-bend over bumps like some torsion beam cars we tested and the interior was terrible. It's dark, dull and feels very low rent - the aircon controls make this terrifying mechanical clicking noise as you turn them...

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Car review
    23 September 2016
    Aston kicks off its ‘second century plan’ with an all-new turbo V12 grand tourer
  • Ford Ka+ 1.2 Ti-VCT 85
    First Drive
    22 September 2016
    A rounded, refined and well-sorted bargain supermini – once you’re used to the confusing role redefinition imposed on the once-cheeky Ka
  •  Maserati Ghibli Diesel
    First Drive
    22 September 2016
    Maserati releases another range of updates for its range best seller, the Ghibli. We've driven the diesel version, but there's little improvement on before
  • Tipo Front
    First Drive
    21 September 2016
    New Fiat Tipo offers impressive space and practicality for a reasonable price. We try the 1.6 diesel on the demanding roads of North Wales
  • Seat Ateca 1.4 TSI 150
    First Drive
    20 September 2016
    The Seat Ateca 1.4 TSI 150 makes perfect sense: it's spacious, tidy to drive for an SUV and cheap to run